Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I had wondered about the construction of the TOJ as well, and thought the same as you.

If two men could practically tear it down for Cairns for the dead, it sounds slightly ominous.

I would think the Martels would know just about every fortress in their territory, so yeah, it sounds as if it had been hastily built if it wasn't on the map, which I thought I heard it was not.

I wonder if Rhaegar started on it, or commissioned Dayne to build it right after Harrenhal given he took Lyanna a year later?

If it has at least a year to be constructed,(and for a fortress of that time, and probably with the least amount of workers to not raise suspicions, a year is still probably a short time) it might give it some substance, but it would also mean that Rhaegar meant to take Lyanna as early as right after Harrenhal, and before Aegons birth, not knowing at that point Elia could have no more children, which also means that it was more than needing a "third head" since he didn't know Elia would be unable to have children.

The fact she does end up infertile after Aegons birth either means Rhaegar had a prophetic vision he actually got right, or he meant to take Lyanna anyway, and Elia's infertility coupled with Rhaegars superstitions provided the justification.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Today's theory: When Meera tells the KoLT story Meera says the rest of the story (after the tournament) is a sadder one.

She is still with Bran and could still tell him. And then Bran could tell Jon and so forth. If necessary.

The main point is that Meera knows. I presume Howland and Jojen also know. And Bran could find out from Meera. Or he could just use his magic vision powers and look at T o J in the past without the help of trees and such

Targaryens are not immune to fire. Aerion Brightflame died drinking wildfire. Aegon V and his son Duncan are thought to have died in a fire-related event at Summerhall. Rhaenyra was eaten by Aegon II's dragon, presumably roasted by fire before the dragon took a bite. Viserys died when he was crowned with molten gold. Dany suffered burns from the fire pit incident at the end of A Dance with Dragons. Finally, the author has stated outright that Targaryens are not immune to fire. Jon's burned hand does not mean he is ineligible to be part Targaryen. For more information about the myth of Targ fire immunity, see this thread.

How can Jon be a Targ if he doesn't have silver hair and purple eyes?

Not all Targaryens had the typical Valyrian look. Alysanne had blue eyes. Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) had the Dornish look. Many of the Great Bastards did not have Valyrian features. Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys had her mother's Dornish look.

If Jon isn't Ned's son, then why does he look so much like him?

Much is made over the fact that Arya looks like Lyanna, and Jon looks like Arya. Ned and Lyanna shared similar looks.

How can Jon be half-Targ if he has a direwolf?

Ned's trueborn children are half Stark and half Tully. Being half Tully didn't prevent them from having a direwolf so there is no reason to think being half Targaryen would prevent Jon from having a direwolf. If Lyanna is his mother, then he's still half Stark. Furthermore, there is already a character who is half Targaryen and half blood of the First Men and was a skinchanger: Bloodraven.

Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard?

The evidence that Jon is probably the legitimate is that Targaryens have a history of polygamous marriages which makes it a possibility that Rhaegar had two wives. Three Kingsguards were present at the Tower of Joy when Ned arrived. Even after Ned said that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon were dead and Viserys had fled to Dragonstone, the KG opted to stay at the TOJ stating they were obeying their Kingsguard vow. The heart of a KG vow is to protect the king. With Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon dead, the new king would have been Viserys, unless Lyanna's child was legitimate making him the new king of the Targaryen dynasty. For a comprehensive analysis of Jon's legitimacy, see the detailed explanations in the two linked articles.

This theory is too obvious and too many people believe it to be fact. How can it be true?

The theory is not obvious to the majority of readers. Some will get it on first read, most will not. Keep in mind that readers who go to online fan forums, such as this one, represent a very small minority of the ASOIAF readership. Also, A Game of Thrones has been out since 1996. That's more than 15 years of readers being able to piece together this mystery.

Why doesn't Ned ever think about Lyanna being Jon's mother?

Ned doesn't think about anyone being his mother. He says the name 'Wylla' to Robert, but does not actively think that Wylla is the mother. He also doesn't think of Jon as his son. There are numerous mysteries in the series, and Jon's parentage is one of those. If Ned thought about Jon being Lyanna's son, it would not be a mystery.

Why should we care who Jon's parents are? Will Jon care? Who cares if he's legitimate?

Once one accepts that the evidence is conclusive and that Jon's parents are Rhaegar and Lyanna and that he is most probably legitimate, these become the important questions.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

"She had smiled then, a smile so tremulous and sweet that it cut the heart right out of him. Riding through the rainy night, Ned saw Jon Snow's face in front of him, so much like a younger version of his own. If the God's frowned so on bastards, he thought dully, why did they fill men with such lusts? 'Lord Baelish, what do you know of Robert's bastards?'" (AGOT)

In this scene Ned thinks of Jon as a bastard, how does this makes sense with the fact that the KG was trying to save him?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

"She had smiled then, a smile so tremulous and sweet that it cut the heart right out of him. Riding through the rainy night, Ned saw Jon Snow's face in front of him, so much like a younger version of his own. If the God's frowned so on bastards, he thought dully, why did they fill men with such lusts? 'Lord Baelish, what do you know of Robert's bastards?'" (AGOT)

In this scene Ned thinks of Jon as a bastard, how does this makes sense with the fact that the KG was trying to save him?

Because it doesnt matter. People assume it does but I disagree. Or he is having loose associations, thinking of Jon having to live as a bastard

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

"She had smiled then, a smile so tremulous and sweet that it cut the heart right out of him. Riding through the rainy night, Ned saw Jon Snow's face in front of him, so much like a younger version of his own. If the God's frowned so on bastards, he thought dully, why did they fill men with such lusts? 'Lord Baelish, what do you know of Robert's bastards?'" (AGOT)

In this scene Ned thinks of Jon as a bastard, how does this makes sense with the fact that the KG was trying to save him?

To me that paragraph states this:

_that Jon and Ned look alike

_that Jon was doomed to have a bastard's life

_that Ned thinks that being a bastard is awful

_that some men are lustful

_that Robert had a lot of bastards

I don't see a conflict with the 3KG at the ToJ

Jon is bastard for everybody to see, He is Jon Snow,

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

"She had smiled then, a smile so tremulous and sweet that it cut the heart right out of him. Riding through the rainy night, Ned saw Jon Snow's face in front of him, so much like a younger version of his own. If the God's frowned so on bastards, he thought dully, why did they fill men with such lusts? 'Lord Baelish, what do you know of Robert's bastards?'" (AGOT)

In this scene Ned thinks of Jon as a bastard, how does this makes sense with the fact that the KG was trying to save him?

Aside from what the others pointed out, it is by no means certain that Ned put the clues together. It was a traumatic day for him and painful to think about. Its possible that he never did think about it enough to figure out what the words the KG were saying meant at a deeper level.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I had wondered about the construction of the TOJ as well, and thought the same as you.

If two men could practically tear it down for Cairns for the dead, it sounds slightly ominous.

I would think the Martels would know just about every fortress in their territory, so yeah, it sounds as if it had been hastily built if it wasn't on the map, which I thought I heard it was not.

I wonder if Rhaegar started on it, or commissioned Dayne to build it right after Harrenhal given he took Lyanna a year later?

If it has at least a year to be constructed,(and for a fortress of that time, and probably with the least amount of workers to not raise suspicions, a year is still probably a short time) it might give it some substance, but it would also mean that Rhaegar meant to take Lyanna as early as right after Harrenhal, and before Aegons birth, not knowing at that point Elia could have no more children, which also means that it was more than needing a "third head" since he didn't know Elia would be unable to have children.

The fact she does end up infertile after Aegons birth either means Rhaegar had a prophetic vision he actually got right, or he meant to take Lyanna anyway, and Elia's infertility coupled with Rhaegars superstitions provided the justification.

I always assumed the ToJ was simply an old, forgotten, abandoned tower. What we know about it suggests it was a lookout tower built in a strategic place, that probably held ravens in the old days, and was used to alert the castles nearby if any armies were seen trying to invade Dornish territories through the Prince's Pass. Not only that, but what little I remember of medieval history is that simple towers belong to the first centuries of medieval age. If we're to draw a parallel between Westeros and our history, well... look at all the other castles we've come across - they're all more complex structures, indicating Westeros is already in another architectonic moment. There are probably other towers like that one in the main series, but the only one I can remember is that of that old knight Dunk works for in "The Sworn Sword" - a simple tower whose structure matches what little we know of the ToJ, and it's explicitly stated it's an old building - another moment.

Finally, okay, maybe a simple tower could be built in that short space of time between Harrenhall and Lyanna's disappearance. But there's no way, with that technology and no magic, they could build a safe place that could resist any army trying to break through even for a short period of time while waiting for an army from Starfall or the Reach to get to them and help. Really, if they chose to build something with less than a year available it would be more simple to make a farmhouse and disguise as peasants than a tower that would attract the attention of anyone who passed by, even if it were close to no one, and would barely be capable of standing against an attack.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It also kept puzzling me how the two men pulled down a tower, until someone pointed out that fire would do the trick. As Lady Octarina correctly points out, given the location (a pass to Dorne), it may have been an old structure, out of use since Dorne became the part of the Targaryen realm. Repairing it, rather than building something new, wouldn't be so costly or time-consuming, and it would mean that at least a part of the strucutre would be wooden (definitely floors, supporting beams etc). If you put such a structure to fire, you will weaken it considerably and it would most probably crumble on its own, so all you have to do to build the cairns is wait till it cools down and gather the stones.

@Dr. Pepper: That's an ingenious post. I believe it should be copied at the beginning of each thread.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Of course, a Targ comanding the Night's Watch, and a Targ on the throne would make a lot of difference for the Night's Watch and the realm(especially against the Others), but most of the main characters (and the story itself) are away from each other.

Of course, a Targ comanding the Night's Watch, and a Targ on the throne would make a lot of difference for the Night's Watch and the realm(especially against the Others), but most of the main characters (and the story itself) are away from each other.

There could be a variety of ways. GRRm might deconstruct the "hidden heir" trope and let him give up the throne. The throne may not be important at all and it willbe his heritage of the two lineages, of dragonlords and wargs, that will play a role in the fight against the Others. Finally, he is sworn to Night's Watch till he dies - so, if he dies and is resurrected, the oath is technically not binding him any more, or his sworn brothers may just kick him out.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Given the way the story is progressing, at least imo, I am doubtful there will be a need for the Night's. Watch when its all said and done. If the Wall keeps out The Others and when the story is over they are defeated, why would the Wall need to be there anymore? No Wall, no Night's. Watch. At least that is what I think.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

How it would benefit the story if R+L=J? Jon is still a man of the Night's Watch. He can't be king. Of course, a Targ comanding the Night's Watch, and a Targ on the throne would make a lot of difference for the Night's Watch and the realm(especially against the Others), but most of the main characters (and the story itself) are away from each other.

He couldnt be king as Ned + someone else either the way things stand. Of course Robb has legitimized him and made him his heir so if people find the will and accept it (i think the North would, given the choices) there's that. If he is the product of R + L that doesnt reduce his prospects.

Given the way the story is progressing, at least imo, I am doubtful there will be a need for the Night's. Watch when its all said and done. If the Wall keeps out The Others and when the story is over they are defeated, why would the Wall need to be there anymore? No Wall, no Night's. Watch. At least that is what I think.

I dont know about the future obviously, but it was the Night's Watch who beat back the Others last time. The Wall almost has to come down, but there is no reason to abolish the NW before the Others are fought. If necessary the Wall can come back up. If the Wall comes down the NW will be needed more than ever.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

There could be a variety of ways. GRRm might deconstruct the "hidden heir" trope and let him give up the throne. The throne may not be important at all and it willbe his heritage of the two lineages, of dragonlords and wargs, that will play a role in the fight against the Others. Finally, he is sworn to Night's Watch till he dies - so, if he dies and is resurrected, the oath is technically not binding him any more, or his sworn brothers may just kick him out.

I agree with your theory.

I just think it will be too easy.

However, before leaving south, Maester Aemon told Jon the same thing he told his brother Aegon. So, may be we can take that as a foreshadowing?

Also, I know that before Maester Aemon, he thought that Dany is the prince that was promised, but I still think it all points out to Jon.

What I tried to say was that I didn't see how he could sit the Throne. But now that you point that out, it seems very likely. I also think that being Lord Commander wasn't something that Jon wanted. He only wanted to be a ranger and find his uncle and fight the others. According to that, IMHO, he would not want to be a king.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

He couldnt be king as Ned + someone else either the way things stand. Of course Robb has legitimized him and made him his heir so if people find the will and accept it (i think the North would, given the choices) there's that. If he is the product of R + L that doesnt reduce his prospects.

If Robb had legitimized Jon before dying, what would it mean for Jon? What would he do?(If his dying and being resurrected doesn't relive him of his vows)

Sorry for double posting, I am new here :D

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Let's just say that if the will did legitimize him and/or named him heir...I don't think any single person in the North (minus those in deep with the current Iron Throne) would be demanding his head as a deserter of the NW if he acted on it.